Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Evidence and Admissibility Part 2

Evidence and Admissibility Part 2

.

In the first discussion on Evidence and Admissibility that appeared in Part 1 there was reference made to the International standards ISO17025 and ISO17020 and their proposed use as laboratory standards suited to forensics and evidence - http://trewmte.blogspot.com/2010/06/evidence-and-admissibility-part-1.html . In Part 2 further reference is made to ISO17025, the Forensic Science Regulator and UKAS and the Diplomas and their potential future influence dealing with evidence and admissibility. The purpose of making reference to these matters allows comparison to made between past technical, forensics and evidential events and potentially where the future lies when dealing with mobile telephone evidence..The FSR (Forensic Science Regulator) as we know has identified a standard for laboratories that is said to be directly applicable to the field of digital mobile telephony, which is ISO/IEC 17025. To recap on background information; this is the main standard used by testing and calibration laboratories. This standard was formally known as ISO/IEC Guide 25. This standard contains many commonalities with QA standard ISO9000. When the second release of ISO17025 occurred in 2005 it did so based upon the agreement that its quality system wording was closely aligned with IS09000 version 2000. Readers may remember I referred to adopted principles in ISO17025 and QA standards in my previous posting Evidence and Admissibility Part 1..So why is ISO/IEC 17025 applicable to all experts and examiners? Significantly, unlike ISO9000 and BS5750, this standard introduces the concept of, and the requirement for, 'competence' of the individual to be included into the equation because the standard applies directly to those organisations that produce testing and calibration results. The fit for purpose requirement of tools is set out under a different requirement, which is 'validation'. In order for 'tools' to remain valid equally relies upon the individual's competence, and at minimum should be:.a) Possess the highest competencies or attain them if the organisation is to rely on the individual to work with a tool;.b) To have been independently assessed by long-term experienced and skilled individuals as opposed to tool suppliers merely approving to get the sale of a tool;.c) Know what the 'tool' does;.d) Have the skills to assess whether the 'tool' is technically failing or systemically flawed in its operation;.e) To be able to maintain the 'tool's' performance - equally means maintaining an individual's skills;.f) To know and understand the requirements of future-proofing and sustainability..How can the above be achieved? For sometime there has been a call for Mobile Phone Forensics Degrees but the Universities failed to take up the proposition. From enquiries made into this matter, it became clear the Universities, despite producing MSCs with one or half of one module containing something on mobile phone examination, the Universities do not have the competencies and skillsets for the work, nor could they identify the materials needed for the degrees or have the ability to assess student competence. That arises because the area is a specialism, thus requires a specialist approach and therefore this is no poor reflection on the academic brillance of Universities. So in this regard it makes no criticism of the Universities for not offering every specialism in the marketplace. This is why the Diplomas (http://trewmte.blogspot.com/2010/05/diplomas-mobile-telephone-evidence.html) have been introduced to solve this particular dilemma in the marketplace given the tens of hundreds involved with this field of distinction. The Diplomas provide a stepping stone to recognising 'competence', which currently examiners are being denied. Moreover, the modules have been prepared in the Diplomas to follow a similar structure to the way in which a student would undertake an MSC..Another area where the Diplomas assist is in relation to cost. Currently MSC degrees cost between £3K to £7k per annum. The latest reported news in the media is that these tuition fees are set to increase even higher, maybe even skyrocket. The Diplomas work the other way around, the more modules you undertake the lower the costs become due to the way the discounts work. The encouragement to undertake the Diplomas therefore doesn't just include imparting real-world knowledge and experience passed on by seasoned professionals, but incentive discounts offered by uptake of the modules enables the securing in-advance of the professionals time which otherwise wouldn't be possible. Furthermore, and at the same time, they offer affordability to students..Why is the way forward given above a better way than the current status quo? Neither the Forensic Science Regulator (FSR) or UKAS can approve the 'competence' of individuals for each particular field of forensic /evidential distinction. Universities as we know do not have the skillsets necessary to rollout degree courses in mobile telephone evidence. Specific to our field of distinction, the Mobile Telephone Examination Board (MTEB) was set up specifically to address peer review; the Diplomas are one way to gain peer review leading to recognition through the MTEB. The foundation to each of the modules in each of the Diplomas map principles to be found in simulated annealing for deterministic and random events that are often understood to be the basis of how evidence from mobile telephone usage occurs. The Universities gain from Diplomas as they work in harmony with them to aid students find the academic path to follow for a specific subject rather than the current way of devaluing and diluting other sciences and forensic fields to build up modules introduced into hybrid technology degree courses. So we need to understand the influences and impact of the quality or state of existing in or assuming different educational forms (generically speaking, polymorphic)..The future of mobile communications and its impact on society will grow even more than hitherto it has. The driving forces for this can be traced as much to remarks on future Global economies by industry illuminaries such as the head of LM Ericsson, the largest telecommunications manufacturer, when he said the future is "wireless" as much to the growth in smartphones and wireless smart devices and the newer wireless transmission and protocols, functionality and applications introducing diversity in the wireless world that looks set to surpass the cable world. However, to meet those exciting and progressive markets, Business can no longer afford to wait for degree students to flock out from Uni after 3 years and then spend another 1-2 year/s bringing them up to speed in the fast-changing wireless environment..An example of fast-changing wireless environment which identifies sustained regular change can be found in the wireless standards used nationally and globally:._____________________________________________________________3GPP specificationsThe term "3GPP specification" covers all GSM (including GPRS and EDGE) and W-CDMA specifications. The following terms are also used to describe networks using the 3G specifications: UTRAN, UMTS (in Europe) and FOMA (in Japan)..Revised versions of many of these specifications are produced up to four times a year following the quarterly TSG plenary meetings (TSG GERAN meets five times a year.)_____________________________________________________________.The Diplomas take all of those conditions above, turn them around and re-work them. Students pursue the business goals first, being effective and self-managed at work, and then use the academic route to refine and hone particular, finite skills to optimise the end result for the benefit of the business. This model can assist Universities to get students wanting to achieve the technical hardcore goals in order to develop products, systems and services tailored from the diversity of the business enterprise and working environment. This can be so because the student's constructive thought process is based upon real-world exposure, not school-to-university idealogical observations. Moroever, there are examiners already working in the field who (a) have not had a fair opportunity to have their competencies recognised by (b) their peers and in the community. The Diplomas remove that unfair stigma for those mobile phone examiners being treated as second class..So what are some of the future evidence and admissibility issues to be considered?.1. Recognised competence so reliance is NOT solely placed upon the tool; thus the removal of "push-button forensics" used to side-step the need for competency .2. Validation of tools will come about (thus side-stepping compliance is unavoidable). Indeed one particular tool developer agrees validation is entirely achieveable. So this is a step forward for validation, but again does not of itself qualify the 'competency' of the individual if trained to use the tool beyond gaining exposure to the tool's operation and use, but not the detail of the subject matter of the science, the technology using the science or, indeed, interpretation of outcomes or data..3. Item 2 (above) is really a further qualification as to why the FSR and UKAS do not appear as candidates to qualify/recognise individual 'competency' in the subject matter or science..In the next part, Part 3, the discussion deals with specific technical issues and their impact on evidence and admissibility.

Mobile Phone Forensic Examination

Greg Smith has over 30 years (1985 to 2016) experience in handling digital and mobile telephone evidence in criminal and civil investigations and providing services to blue-chip clients in the UK. Our unit the DEEU conducts acquisition and harvesting of data from: